News
Print Article

From Colorado to Jersey: $12B Suit Alleges HSBC-Barclays Trust Theft

08/12/2025

Executive Summary

  • On 8 December 2025 it was reported that Plaintiffs Tanya Dick‑Stock and Darrin Stock have filed a U.S. civil action in the District of Colorado against multiple Barclays and HSBC entities (including Barclays Trust International and HSBC Private Bank (Jersey) Limited), as well as  Zahed Trust Company Limited doing business as Zedra and Zedra Holdings (US) Inc. and a U.S. affiliate, alleging breach of trust and dishonest assistance tied to an alleged improper offshore transfer of assets from a Colorado trust with c.$350m under management. The claimed damages total $12bn.
  • Counsel of record for plaintiffs includes John (Johnny) Edwards, former U.S. Senator, via Edwards Kirby LLP. The case was filed on 5 December 2025 (No. 1:25‑cv‑03923) and names both UK and Jersey operations among defendants. [dockets.justia.com][law.com][offshorealert.com]
  • Separate investigative reporting from 2020 details earlier complaints by Dick Stock concerning a 2012 loan secured on trust property and alleged failures to investigate fraud warnings in Jersey. While not dispositive of the present claims, these histories may be cited as background in pleadings or media narratives. [thebureaui…igates.com]

Specific Allegations and Claims

Key allegations:

  • Improper Asset Transfers: The $350 million Colorado trust was allegedly moved offshore to Jersey without proper authorisation, enabling looting.
  • Breach of Trust: Defendants failed fiduciary duties as trustees or assistants, allowing self-dealing.
  • Dishonest Assistance: Banks knowingly aided fraud, e.g., via loans and ignoring red flags.
  • Fraud on the Power: A Jersey law concept where trustees abuse powers for unauthorised purposes.

The $12 billion figure may stem from extrapolated losses:

  • Original assets ($350-500 million), plus decades of compound growth (e.g., at 7-10% annual returns, this could balloon significantly), legal fees, and punitive damages. Public reactions on platforms like X highlight scepticism about the scale but note the case's focus on "fraud on the power."

Parties, Procedural Posture, and Allegations

Defendants named (illustrative list):

Plaintiffs/counsel:

  • Tanya Dick‑Stock and Darrin Stock; represented by Edwards Kirby LLP (John Edwards)[law.com]

Core allegations (as reported):

  • Improper offshore transfer of assets from a Colorado trust ($350m), resulting in alleged breach of trust and dishonest assistance by bank and trust company defendants; $12bn damages claimed. [offshorealert.com]

Current posture:

  • Case filed 5 Dec 2025; summons requests lodged against multiple defendants; assigned to Judge R. Brooke Jackson. Substantive motions, service, and jurisdictional contests are expected. [dockets.justia.com]

LONG READ

Introduction to the Lawsuit

  • The lawsuit filed on December 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, titled Dick-Stock et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC et al. (Case No. 1:2025cv03923), represents a significant escalation in a long-running family and financial dispute. Plaintiffs Tanya Dick-Stock and her husband Darrin Stock are seeking $12 billion in damages from several major financial institutions, primarily the Jersey (Channel Islands) operations of Barclays and HSBC, along with related entities.
  • The core allegations involve breach of trust and dishonest assistance in the improper handling and transfer of assets from a Colorado-based family trust valued at approximately $350 million. The plaintiffs are represented by prominent attorney and former U.S. Senator John Edwards, known for high-profile cases involving corporate misconduct.
  • This case is not isolated; it stems from over a decade of revelations of alleged fraud in offshore trusts managed in Jersey, a jurisdiction known for its secrecy and tax advantages. The $12 billion claim is enormous, likely encompassing compensatory damages for lost assets, potential investment growth, interest, and punitive damages to penalise alleged wilful misconduct. While the exact breakdown isn't publicly disclosed in initial filings, inflated figures in trust disputes often account for "opportunity costs" (e.g., what the assets could have earned if not mishandled) and exemplary damages under common law principles for breach of fiduciary duties.

Background on the Parties Involved

Plaintiffs: Tanya Dick-Stock and Darrin Stock

  • Tanya Dick-Stock, born in Denver, Colorado, is the daughter of Canadian millionaire John Dick, a lawyer and businessman who amassed a fortune through U.S. real estate investments in the 1970s and 1980s. The family placed hundreds of millions into trusts intended for Tanya and other beneficiaries, with initial estimates valuing them at up to $500 million. Tanya, now in her 40s, discovered evidence of fraud in 2012 while preparing for her wedding at the family's St. John's Manor estate in Jersey.
  • She and her husband, Darrin Stock, a businessman, have since pursued legal actions, including reporting findings to Jersey police in 2015, which triggered "Operation Scarlet" – an investigation that seized hundreds of boxes of documents but resulted in no charges.
  • The couple has previously sued John Dick in Colorado for allegedly looting the trusts through fraudulent schemes, with a trial pending as of 2021 (outcomes not specified in recent sources). Their involvement highlights a classic heir vs. patriarch dynamic, complicated by offshore structures designed to minimise taxes but allegedly used for self-dealing.

Defendants: Barclays, HSBC, and Related Entities

The defendants include:

  • Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Trust International: Accused of facilitating improper trust management in Jersey.
  • HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank USA NA, and HSBC Private Bank (Jersey) Limited: Implicated in dishonest assistance, including a controversial 2012 loan.
  • Zahed Trust Company Limited (dba Zedra) and Zedra Holdings (US) Inc.: Trust administrators allegedly involved in the transfers.

John DickLa Hougue (later Pantrust) in Jersey

  • John Dick, though not a defendant, is implicitly central as the alleged architect of the fraud, having founded La Hougue (later Pantrust) in Jersey, which specialised in aggressive tax-avoidance schemes involving forged documents and dummy entities.

Historical Context of the Dispute

  • The roots date to the 1980s, when John Dick established offshore trusts in Jersey to shield family wealth from taxes. La Hougue, operating from St. John's Manor, was described as a "massive fraud machine" in leaked documents, involving fabricated debts, bogus client names, and asset siphoning. Tanya's discovery of over 350,000 documents in 2012 revealed these practices, leading to:
    • 2015 Police Report: Tanya, Darrin, and John Dick (initially cooperating) reported fraud to Jersey authorities. No prosecutions followed, raising questions about Jersey's regulatory environment.
    • U.S. Lawsuit Against John Dick: Ongoing in Colorado, alleging he drained trusts for personal gain.
    • Jersey Court Actions: Tanya faced setbacks, including over $1 million in fines and jail threats, illustrating challenges in piercing offshore veils.

A key incident involves HSBC's 2012 £6.5 million loan to Pantrust, secured by St. John's Manor (a trust asset).

  • Directors allegedly provided false information, and the loan repaid John Dick's personal debts despite him not being a beneficiary. HSBC ignored warnings from Tanya's team as early as 2015, prioritising trustee queries over beneficiary concerns. Barclays' specific role is less detailed in public sources but likely involves similar trust administration failures.
  • This history underscores how offshore jurisdictions like Jersey enable complex fraud, with banks potentially complicit through lax due diligence.

Specific Allegations and Claims

The complaint, classified as "Other Fraud" under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction), demands a jury trial and includes exhibits such as family trust documents, default judgments, memos regarding questionable transactions, and a report from a Panama regulator. Key allegations:

  • Improper Asset Transfers: The $350 million Colorado trust was allegedly moved offshore to Jersey without proper authorisation, enabling looting.
  • Breach of Trust: Defendants failed fiduciary duties as trustees or assistants, allowing self-dealing.
  • Dishonest Assistance: Banks knowingly aided fraud, e.g., via loans and ignoring red flags.
  • Fraud on the Power: A Jersey law concept where trustees abuse powers for unauthorised purposes.

The $12 billion figure may stem from extrapolated losses: original assets ($350-500 million), plus decades of compound growth (e.g., at 7-10% annual returns, this could balloon significantly), legal fees, and punitive damages.

Public reactions on platforms like X highlight scepticism about the scale but note the case's focus on "fraud on the power."

Legal Basis, Jurisdiction, and Challenges

  • Basis: Draws on English/Jersey trust law (applicable to offshore structures) and U.S. fraud statutes. "Dishonest assistance" is a U.K. common law tort requiring knowledge of breach and assistance.
  • Jurisdiction: Filed in Colorado due to the trust's U.S. origin and plaintiffs' residence, invoking diversity (foreign defendants, amount over $75,000). However, defendants may challenge this, arguing that Jersey courts are more appropriate.
  • Challenges: Proving "dishonesty" requires evidence of intent, complicated by offshore secrecy. Prior Jersey inaction may bolster claims of systemic issues, but banks could argue that they followed the trustee's instructions.

Potential Outcomes and Implications

  • For Plaintiffs: Success could recover substantial assets and set a precedent for holding banks accountable in offshore disputes. Failure risks high costs, as seen in prior Jersey fines.
  • For Defendants: Barclays and HSBC face reputational damage amid ongoing scandals (e.g., HSBC's money laundering fines, Barclays' Epstein ties). Settlements are likely, given banks' history of paying billions to resolve similar claims.
  • Broader Impact: Highlights vulnerabilities in global trust systems, potentially pressuring Jersey for reforms. It echoes cases such as the FinCEN Files, which expose banks' roles in facilitating illicit flows. With Edwards' involvement, it may gain media traction, influencing U.S.-U.K. regulatory cooperation.

This lawsuit exemplifies offshore finance: tools for wealth preservation that can enable abuse, with victims fighting across borders for justice.  As the case progresses under Judge R. Brooke Jackson, discovery could reveal more about the banks' internal practices.

Appendix: Sources (selected)

OTHER References (Web News Sources)

  1. https://www.offshorealert.com/hsbc-barclays-banks-jersey-operations-sued-for-12b-losses-by-alleged-u-s-based-trust-beneficiary/
  2. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2025cv03923/249697
  3. https://www.law.com/radar/card/pm-61646486-dick-stock-v-barclays-bank-plc
  4. https://x.com/submergingmkt/status/1997356836031516965
  5. https://www.offshorealert.com/tanya-dick-stock-et-al-v-barclays-bank-plc-et-al-complaint-12b-losses-jersey-trusts/
  6. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/filings/DD7JHIKI/Dick-Stock_et_al_v_Barclays_Bank_PLC_et_al__codce-25-03923__0001.0.pdf
  7. https://x.com/submergingmkt/status/1997358252464406924
  8. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2020-10-05/hsbc-ignored-jersey-fraud-warnings
  9. https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2bswqqcadziy4w6l54934/culture/the-heiress-the-queen-and-the-trillion-dollar-tax-shelter
  10. https://eic.network/blog/huge-new-tax-haven-leak-reveals-specialist-money-laundering-company
  11. https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news/daughter-excluded-family-wealth-after-accusing-former-seigneur-fraud/
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/jersey-dick-family-trouble-in-paradise-offshore-trusts-court-battle
  13. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/blog/2020-10-05/jersey-offshore-fallout-of-a-family-fraud
  14. https://podcasts.taxjustice.net/episode/117-jerseys-pandoras-boxes/
  15. https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2022/06/06/heiress-in-legal-battle-with-her-father-ordered-to-pay-law-firm/
  16. https://www.occrp.org/en/investigation/jersey-tax-shelter-leak-exposes-wall-street-trading-activities-of-ghislaine-maxwells-family
  17. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/liberty-global-stands-by-board-member-john-dick-despite-daughters-theft-claims.html
  18. https://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/offshore-leak-exposes-financial-secrets-of-ghislaine-maxwells-family/
  19. https://www.offshorealert.com/tanya-dick-stock-et-al-v-barclays-bank-plc-et-al-complaint-12b-losses-jersey-trusts/ (Additional complaint details)
  20. https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2bswqqcadziy4w6l54934/culture/the-heiress-the-queen-and-the-trillion-dollar-tax-shelter (Detailed historical context)
JERSEY FRAUD LEGAL

The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more

Gallery

View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more

Contact

Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.